CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016

1
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)
A Manual for Implementing the Sustainable
Land Management Program (SLMP)
Part 1: General Concept and Operational Approach
Compiled by the Sustainable Land Management (GIZ-SLM) Programme
Dr. Georg Deichert, Dr. Ashenafi Gedamu Gobena, Mr. Lloyd Blum, Mr. David Kersting
Addis Ababa, 2017

2
Contents
1. Climate change and agriculture: the international context.................................................. 4
2. What is climate-smart agriculture?..................................................................................... 5
3. Climate change and sustainable land management in Ethiopia ......................................... 9
4. Climate-smart agriculture field manual: context ................................................................11
4.1 Scope of the manual...................................................................................................11
4.2 Identifying ‘climate smartness’....................................................................................14
5. An operational approach to climate-smart agriculture.......................................................18
5.1 The cycle of adoption..................................................................................................18
5.2 Integrating CSA interventions into watershed management planning .........................20
5.3 Building combinations of CSA interventions................................................................22
5.4 Identifying beneficiaries – group approach..................................................................26
6. Implementing climate-smart agriculture ............................................................................28
7. Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................................29
8. Strengthening support services ........................................................................................30
8.1 Access to climate Information and weather forecasts .................................................30
8.2 Strengthening animal health services .........................................................................31
9. Challenges to implementing climate-smart agriculture......................................................32
10. Infotech briefs.................................................................................................................33
11. References.....................................................................................................................35
12. Annexes .........................................................................................................................38

3
Abbreviations
BoO Basket of options
CBPWMG Community-Based Participatory Watershed Management Guidelines
CIG Common interest group
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COP21 2015 United Nations Climate Change Company
CRGE Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy
CSA Climate-smart agriculture
CWT Community Watershed Team
DA Development Agent
DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate
DRMEC Disaster Risk Management Early Warning Commission
EPAAC Ethiopian Programme of Adaptation to Climate Change
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GCCA-E Global Climate Change Alliance - Ethiopia
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GIZ Gesellschaft für international Zusammenarbeit
ICT Information and communication technology
IGA Income-generating activity or income-generating agriculture
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
IPM Integrated Pest Management
MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources
MRV Monitoring, reporting and verification
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NMET National Meteorological Office
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SLMP Sustainable Land Management Program
SOM Soil organic matter
SWC Soil and water conservation
UG User group
TT Task team
WFP World Food Program of the United Nations

4
1. Climate change and agriculture: the international context
Climate change expresses itself through global warming, rising sea levels, changing weather
patterns and increasing frequency of natural hazards. Climate change induced by human
activity results directly from our management of land, water, air and natural resources.
The international debate on climate change has been on the agenda of international
conferences for some years now, the Kyoto Protocol being one of the most widely known.
The most recent international conference, COP21, resulted in the Paris agreement, under
which 195 countries committed to formulating their own national targets (or INDCs, Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions) for mitigating climate change. It is expected that these
national targets will subsequently be aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3,
4 and 7.
Climate-change discussions are often centred around the industrial, energy and transport
sectors since they are strong contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
More recently, however, the role of the agriculture sector has received greater attention, both
in terms of its contribution to global warming and with regard to its mitigation potential. There
is growing recognition of the need to adapt farming practices to the effects of climate change,
and specific adaptation funds have increasingly been made available as a result. A strong
orientation of focus within this area goes towards the agricultural sector and smallholder
farmers in developing countries.
Exploring the synergy between mitigation and adaptation is at the core of agricultural policies
which address climate change. The International Assessment of Agriculture, Science and
Technology for Development concludes that:
‘continuing the “business-as-usual” attitude to using green-revolution
technologies and practices of food production is not an option for the future’
(IAASTD 2009).
Such a conclusion goes some way to justifying the rationale for giving greater importance to
climate-sensitive / climate-smart agriculture1
.
1
Both terms are used synonymously under the CSA abbreviation in this document.

5
2. What is climate-smart agriculture?
Although ’climate-smart agriculture’ is a very widely used term, it is too often conflated
with conventional, ‘business-as-usual’ agriculture that reflects no climate-specific benefits.
Having said this, the fact that agriculture both contributes significantly to GHG emissions and
at the same time is strongly affected by climate change, has initiated the exploration of
agricultural methods that are aligned with the maintenance of ecosystems.
Ecosystem-based approaches to food security represent a mind shift from policies of the
past which focused on agricultural productivity of farmland, trade and macro-economic
policies. Many past policies comprised unsustainable and/or even counter-productive goals
(Munang 2013).
Definitions of the term ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) vary. A widely quoted definition is ‘an
approach for transforming and reorienting agricultural development under the new realities of
the world’s changing climate’ (Lipper et al. 2014). The FAO (2013) defines CSA as
‘agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances resilience (adaptation),
reduces or removes GHGs (mitigation) where possible, and thereby enhances the
achievement of national food security and development goals’.
Figure 1. The three pillars of climate-smart agriculture
In short, CSA aims to permit the generation of income in a more climate-resilient way. The
three pillars can be understood as follows:
Productivity: CSA aims to increase agricultural productivity and income from crops,
livestock and fish in the long run, without negatively impacting the environment. A key
concept related to raising productivity is sustainable intensification, ideally through labour-
intensive rather than capital-intensive means of production.
Mitigation: Wherever and whenever possible, CSA should reduce and/or remove
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CSA should also reduce deforestation and manage soils
and trees in ways that maximise their potential to act as carbon sinks and CO2 absorbers.
Adaptation: CSA aims to minimise the exposure of farmers and ecosystems to short-term
risks while also building their capacity to adapt and prosper in the face of shocks and longer-
term stresses. Particular attention is given to protecting the ‘environmental services’ that

6
support ecosystems such as clean water and fertile soils. Adaptation can be interpreted as
both the capacity of the farmer to adapt, and the stabilisation of the ecosystem under which
he/she is farming. The latter acts as a buffer against the effects of climate signals: Figure 2
aims to illustrate this.
Figure 2. Defining ‘adaptation’ in two dimensions
An ecosystem that is resilient will minimise production losses from negative climate effects.
This duly lowers the vulnerability of the farmer. Farmers can strengthen their adaptive
capacity with knowledge, skills and access to adaptation options. Having said this,
adaptation options can have negative and / or positive effects on the resilience of an
ecosystem, directly or in the longer term. For example, the application of compost has a
much more positive effect on the soil than applying mineral fertiliser.
In addition to the pillars of productivity, mitigation and adaptation outlined above, CSA is also
characterised by the following characteristics:
- CSA addresses climate change. Conventional agricultural development focuses
solely on income generation and food security. CSA systematically integrates climate-
change adaptation and/or mitigation objectives.
- CSA integrates multiple goals and manages trade-offs. Ideally CSA produces
triple-win outcomes of increased productivity, enhanced resilience and reduced
Box 1: From mitigation to adaptation – with mitigation as a co-benefit
Since their very beginnings, attempts to address climate change have focused on mitigating
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This has led to an emerging market whereby emissions
reductions, measured in terms of carbon sequestration, are paid for according to the market
price of 1 ton of CO2 equivalent. Carbon credit payments are made based on national
monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) procedures. Many projects have been launched
internationally to avail credit for carbon financing to smallholder farmers. However, success
rates have been very low due to the complexity of establishing and pursuing MRV systems as
well as the virtual collapse of the carbon market when prices dropped from over $20 per ton of
CO2 to about $1 after 2010. This plunge in value has contributed to a shift in focus toward
adaptation measures, especially for smallholder farmers.

7
emissions, but it is often impossible to achieve all three at the same time. Trade-offs
must therefore be acknowledged when implementing CSA activities. Managing these
trade-offs requires a combination of measures, each with its associated costs.
- CSA maintains and stabilises ‘ecosystem services’. It is imperative that CSA
interventions do not contribute to the degradation of clean air, clean water and
healthy soil. In order to ensure this, CSA must build upon the principles of sustainable
agriculture.
- CSA is context specific. No single intervention can be termed ‘climate smart’
everywhere, all of the time. Interventions must take into consideration the interaction
of many factors within a given landscape, ecosystem, watershed or community. A
guiding principle for improving and advancing CSA is that adaptation to local
conditions is more important than applying ‘cut-and-paste’ packages of technology.
- CSA has multiple entry points. CSA interventions go beyond single technologies at
farm level: they may include the integration of multiple interventions at the farm,
community, food-system, landscape, value-chain or policy levels.
Box 2: What is sustainable agriculture?
Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production practices. It is
applied site specifically and endures long term. A given form of agriculture can only be
labelled ‘sustainable’ if it is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally
appropriate and based on a holistic scientific approach.
Sustainable agriculture produces high-quality food, fibre and medicines while at the same
time preserving biodiversity, maintaining soil fertility and water purity, recycling natural
resources and conserving energy. It minimises the use of external and purchased inputs,
respecting the ecological principles of diversity and interdependence. Sustainable agriculture
uses the insights of modern science to improve upon (rather than displace or disregard)
traditional accumulated wisdom. In this way it is inherently ‘climate smart’.
Sustainable agriculture is not a prescribed set of practices. Instead it challenges producers to
think about the long-term implications of practices and the broad interactions and dynamics
of agricultural systems. A key goal here is to understand agriculture from an ecological
perspective in terms of interactions among plants, animals, insects and other organisms.
Source: Mary V. Gold, Sustainable Agriculture: definitions and terms. US Department of Agriculture August 2007.
CSA demands integration of the three pillars (productivity, mitigation and adaptation) at any
scale, from the local to the global level, over both short and long time horizons, and taking
into account national and local specificities and priorities. CSA also takes into consideration
all climate risks. Figure 3 below depicts the different dimensions of CSA. A formula for it
might look as follows:
CSA = IGA + adaptation effects + mitigation effects

8
Figure 3. A process flow of climate-smart agriculture according to its three pillars
Although CSA may include the building of policy frameworks, strengthening institutions and
seeking financing options, this manual focuses on (i) interventions on smallholder farmland
and homesteads, and on (ii) strengthening targeted support services.
Climate change affects Ethiopian landscapes and livelihoods

9
3. Climate change and sustainable land management in
Ethiopia
Although Africa accounts for only 6.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the continent is
particularly vulnerable to the consequences of climate change (World Resource Institute
2016). Most farmland is rain fed, and by 2020 crop production is projected to have halved
compared to 2005, while the share of dry and semi-arid lands is expected to have increased
by up to 8% by 2080 (Boko et al. 2007).
In Ethiopia, as in most developing countries with low levels of industrialisation, the
agriculture-related sub-sectors have the greatest share of GDP, as well as providing a
relatively large share of GHG emissions.
Figure 4. Greenhouse gas emissions in Ethiopia in 2010 – total 150 megatons of carbon dioxide –
spread across four economic sub-sectors (Ethiopia INDC).
The pie chart shows that in 2010, livestock released the most greenhouse gases (42% or 65
Mt CO2), followed by deforestation and forest degradation (55 Mt CO2 / 37%) and then crop
cultivation (12 Mt CO2 or 9%).
Ethiopian Government ministries’ attempts to address climate change have included the
following strategies and plans:
 National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA 2007)
 Ethiopian Programme of Adaptation to Climate Change (EPAAC 2011)
 Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy (CRGE 2011)
 Agriculture Sector Adaptation Strategy
 Nine regional-state and two city adaptation plans.
The CRGE is Ethiopia’s strategy for addressing climate-change adaptation and mitigation
objectives: Ethiopia intends to reduce net GHG emissions by 64% by 2030 compared to the
projected ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Ethiopia also intends to undertake adaptation
initiatives to reduce the vulnerability of the population, the environment and the economy to
the adverse effects of climate change. The long-term goal of CRGE is to ensure that
adaptation to climate change is fully mainstreamed into development activities.
Considering that agriculture is a major contributor to GHG emissions, and that smallholder
farming systems produce the lion’s share of Ethiopian agriculture, this focus on adaptation is

10
justified and appropriate. The main effort in the near future is to build the capacity needed to
mainstream adaptation to climate change into all public and private development activities.
For some years the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR, previously
MoA&RD) has been addressing the impacts of climate change in the Ethiopian highlands
through the Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP). The programme’s prime focus
is the rehabilitation of degraded slopes through soil and water conservation (SWC) measures.
Interventions are organised geographically by micro-watershed and follow a three-stage
approach, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The three stages of SLM implementation
Stages 1 and 2 of the diagram above underline SLM’s conservation of soil and water on
communal land. Stage 3 is predominantly implemented on farmers’ private land. SLMP is
guided by a landscape approach to food security. This means that SWC measures should
decrease soil erosion rates and rehabilitate degraded land as a pre-condition to sustainably
intensifying crop and livestock production, since they rehabilitate ecological functions such as
water availability, nutrient cycling and natural pollination.
For the implementation of SLMP, the MoANR has developed and documented a
comprehensive set of Community-Based Participatory Watershed Management Guidelines
(CBPWMG). The guidelines include detailed steps of action with regard to stages 1 and 2,
including how to identify watersheds, establishing watershed development teams and
formulating investment and management plans with the community based on situational
analysis (especially CBPWMG Annex 9). The guidelines refer predominantly to SWC
measures on communal land. However, there is also an urgent need to create and
disseminate guidelines on agricultural and livestock production on private farm land. An
additional manual is therefore needed which links to SWC measures, helps farmers to
generate income, and is of course climate sensitive.

11
4. Climate-smart agriculture field manual: context
4.1 Scope of the manual
This CSA manual describes how to implement climate-sensitive agriculture activities both
within and beyond the context of the Ethiopian Government’s Sustainable Land Management
Program, Phase 2 (SLMP-2). The SLMP-2 project design comprises the following
components:
1. Integrated Watershed and Landscape Management
1.1. Sustainable natural-resource management on public and communal land
1.2. Homestead and farmland development, livelihood improvement and climate-smart
agriculture (CSA)
2. Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development and Knowledge Management
3. Rural Land Administration, Certification and Land Use
4. Project Management.
This manual is most relevant to Component 1.2 above, but since it does not focus exclusively
on agriculture and livestock activities on private farmlands and homesteads, there is scope
for its wider application. For example, the manual supplements the CBPWM Guidelines on
implementing soil and water conservation (SWC) on communal land (in line with Component
1.1 above), and CSA represents a step toward sustainable watershed management. CSA
interventions should therefore build on SWC measures already implemented in target
watersheds, for example, working within enclosures that have already been established as a
precondition.
Diversified home gardens, such as this one support food security

12
Chicken rearing as diversified domestic production
The CSA manual guides ministry and project staff at all levels in identifying and implementing
climate-sensitive agriculture and livestock development activities by proposing tools and
methodologies for planning, identifying, operationalising and monitoring climate-sensitive
agriculture activities. The document explores more general CSA concepts in Part 1 and
presents more detailed descriptions of pre-selected interventions in Part 2.
A series of ‘infotech’ briefs are stand-alone guides to assist extension staff in carrying out
CSA interventions. The following interventions have already been identified for implement-
tation under SLMP-2:
 Agroforestry - trees planted with farmland crops).
 Conservation agriculture - a combination of minimum tillage with high soil
coverage and crop rotation.
 Crop production for strengthening agro-ecology and agro-biodiversity -
includes a wide range of crop-management and crop-variety measures.
 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) - includes the range of
interventions affecting soil fertility directly and crop management indirectly.
 Livestock management and forage development - includes all animal
husbandry and animal-breeding measures which are being practised by farmers,
except for external animal breeding and health services.
 Manure management (including biogas)
 Agricultural water management
 Bamboo development on farmland.

13
Box 3: The concepts of Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) and soil health
ISFM is as a set of soil fertility management practices that combines the use of fertiliser,
organic inputs and improved germ plasm with knowledge of how to adapt them to local
conditions. ISFM aims to optimise the efficiency of applying nutrients, and thereby to improve
crop productivity as sustainably as possibly. It gives importance to knowledge of physical and
chemical soil properties, as well as an understanding of the nutrient cycle. In this way, ISFM
requires that all inputs be managed following sound agronomic and economic principles. The
underlying principle of integrated soil fertility management is to ‘feed the plant’.
Meanwhile, the concept of soil health gives strong emphasis to biological soil aspects and
the effect of countless interactions among organisms and the substances on the surface and
within the soil. The underlying principle of soil health management is to ‘feed the soil, not the
plant!’
As a formula, the concept can be summarised as:
soil health = soil fertility + soil biology
Box 4: Agro-biodiversity
Agricultural biodiversity (or ‘agro-biodiversity’) describes the range of genetic resources necessary for
sustaining key functions of an food-producing ecosystem (FAO 2011). Agro-biodiversity is the result of
both the processes of natural selection and of selection and innovative development by farmers,
herders and fishermen over millennia such as:
• Harvested crop varieties, livestock breeds and fish species;
• Non-domesticated resources including tree products and wild animals hunted for food;
• Non-harvested species in production ecosystems that directly support food provision such as soil
micro-biota and pollinators – bees, butterflies, earthworms, greenflies etc.;
• Non-harvested species in the wider environment that indirectly support agricultural, pastoral, forest
and aquatic food-production ecosystems.
Agro-biodiversity is the result of the interaction between the environment, genetic resources and
management systems and practices used by culturally diverse groups of humans. Local knowledge
and culture are therefore integral parts of agro-biodiversity, since it is human activity in agriculture that
most strongly influences (and is able to conserve) biodiversity.
For a long time, agro-biodiversity has been considered as a means of enhancing farmers’ resilience
against the effects of climate change. However, there are no clearly defined agro-biodiversity
activities; rather, there are different activities that contribute to it in greater or lesser degrees. In this
manual, therefore, agro-biodiversity is treated as an effect rather than as an activity unto itself. See
Box 5 and Annex 1 below, within which the Basket of Options treats agro-biodiversity as an effect of
interventions above ground, while below-ground soil biodiversity is as an effect on soil fertility.

14
4.2 Identifying ‘climate smartness’
Identifying climate-smart interventions is not a matter of ‘yes’ or ’no’; rather, it is a continuum,
with some interventions being more climate smart than others, including depending on the
location and context, and often involving trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and
income generation. For example, an intervention which reduces GHG emissions may not
generate much income for a farmer.
Climate smartness is often achieved not only by ‘doing different things’ but by ‘doing things
differently’. In other words, the ‘climate smartness’ of an intervention depends on the quality
and method by which it is implemented rather than simply what is being done. This usually
requires that ecological- and social-resilience factors in terms of natural, human and social
capital are developed and built in (Adger 2000) with the often more attractive shorter-term
goals of increased outputs and/or higher income generation.
For example, the effect of mulching on farmland depends heavily on the exact amount(s) and
type(s) of crop residue or other organic material that are used to cover the soil. Similarly, the
climate smartness of reduced tillage depends on the frequency and the depth of ploughing.
‘Doing things differently’: row planting and precise application of fertiliser
Systematic classification of the climate smartness of agricultural practices can be achieved
by referencing the basket of options (BoO) - see Box 5 below.
Development agents (DAs) can refer to the BoO to gauge the climate smartness of an
intervention – including using the relevant infotech brief as a guide. The justifications of BoO
ratings can help DAs to explain and justify interventions based on their climate smartness. If
a DA doesn’t yet have a clear idea which measure(s) to implement in a particular watershed,
the BoO can also be used as a selection tool for interventions.

15
‘Doing things differently’: minimum tillage requires changes of habitual practice
Box 5: Identifying the climate smartness of activities: the Basket of Options
The BoO classifies agricultural interventions or practices and scores them according to their
adaptation, mitigation and livelihood enhancement potentials.
Since adaptation and mitigation cannot be easily qualified or even quantified with a single
score, sub-parameters were introduced which describe the direct effects of an intervention
on the three components of CSA (adaptation, mitigation and livelihood), as follows:

16
Each intervention is scored against the sub-parameters, which range from -3 to +3,
symbolised as - - - to +++. The scores of the 6 adaptation sub-parameters, 2 mitigation sub-
parameters and 1 livelihood sub-parameter together make up the total score of climate
smartness. The maximum BoO scores for an intervention are therefore 18 (adaptation, 6 x
3), 6 (mitigation, 2 x 3), and 3 (livelihood, 1 x 3), totalling to a maximum possible climate-
smart score of 27 (18+6+3).
Interventions are grouped by four major land-use types of a typical watershed, plus one
livestock group. Such a grouping reflects a landscape approach rather than a technical,
subject-matter approach of climate-relevant interventions.
Table 1: Selected interventions and their ratings, by order of total rating
Direct effects
on: Adaptation Mitigation Livelihood CSA
Measure, by
land use type
Forestdegradation
Soildegradation
Wateravailability
Soilfertility
Livestockpressure
Biodiversity
Subtotal
Reducingemission
Storingcarbon
Subtotal
Increasing
productivity
Subtotal
Totalrating
(outof27)
Farm land
Agroforestry NDR ++ ++ ++ + + 8 ++ ++ 4 ++ 2 14
Applying
compost NDR ++ ++ +++ NDR ++ 9 -- ++ 0 ++ 2 11
Mulching NDR ++ +++ + NDR + 7 + + 2 + 1 10
Forage
production NDR + + + ++ + 6 + + 2 + 1 9
Conservation
Agriculture NDR ++ + ++ + + 7 + 0 1 + 1 9
Intercropping NDR ++ ++ + NDR + 6 NDR NDR 0 ++ 2 8
Green
manuring NDR + ++ ++ NDR + 6 0 + 1 + 1 8
Using bio-
fertiliser NDR NDR NDR +++ NDR + 4 + NDR 1 ++ 2 7
Applying lime
on acidic soils NDR + + +++ NDR + 7 - NDR -1 + 1 7
Crop residue
management NDR ++ + + - + 4 + + 2 + 1 7
Crop rotation NDR + + + NDR + 4 NDR NDR 0 ++ 2 6
Planting with
space/row
planting NDR + + 0 NDR 0 2 NDR NDR 0 ++ 2 4
Changing crop
varieties NDR 0 NDR + NDR - 0 0 0 0 ++ 2 2
NDR = No direct relation
Each score in the BoO is underpinned with a justification. These justifications are very
important for understanding (and possibly reviewing) a given score. A score is most
meaningful when the intervention is precisely and accurately described in terms of numbers.
The scale effect is partially considered in the score, for example planting a large number of

17
trees on degraded hill sides has a stronger mitigation effect than planting few trees around
the homestead. Also, the effects of time are not considered in the score. For example, the
climatic impact of planting trees generally occurs much later than applying compost on
farmland. The following table is an example of justifications of the scores for applying
compost on farmland.
Table 2: Rating climate-smart measures and their justifications (example): applying compost on farmland
Direct effects on … Applying compost
Rating Justification
Adaptation Forest
degradation
NDR
No direct relation
Soil degradation ++ The organic matter soil nutrients are better maintained
Water availability ++
Enhances water-holding capacity through improved soil
structure
Soil fertility +++ Adds soil organic matter (SOM)
Livestock
pressure
NDR
No direct relation
Biodiversity ++ Maintains and improves soil biota
Subtotal 9
Mitigation Reducing
emission
- -
Increases GHG emissions if exposed
Storing carbon ++
The absorption of compost directly increases soil
organic matter
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing
productivity
++
Directly increases crop yield depending on compost
quality and amount applied
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 11
The complete BoO, with justifications for each rating, is found in Annex 1.

18
5. An operational approach to climate-smart agriculture
5.1 The cycle of adoption
CSA interventions under SLMP-2 will be implemented primarily in micro-watersheds that
have already been supported with soil- and water-conservation (SWC) measures. Since
these SWC measures, whether physical or biological, are usually a one-time investment,
they differ from CSA interventions which are organised and introduced around annual
vegetation and/or livestock cycles. This ‘cycle of adoption’ describes how farmers test,
evaluate and modify new agricultural ideas from one year to the next. The annual phases
comprise (i) awareness raising and social mobilisation, (ii) action and budget planning, (iii)
implementation in terms of demonstration and / or up-scaling, and (iv) experience sharing,
(self-)evaluation and feedback on implementation.
Figure 6. Climate-smart agriculture: the cycle of adoption
The phases of adoption laid out above are almost identical to the SLM process described in
the CBPWM Guidelines. In addition, since CSA interventions under SLMP-2 are foreseen for
existing SLMP watersheds only, the adoption of CSA integrates smoothly and easily into the
existing SLM activities.
For example, the adoption cycle begins with the allocation of a CSA intervention budget for
the woreda (district). DAs and woreda experts then sensitise community members about
CSA, organising village meetings in harmony with SLM annual planning exercises. The DA
uses the Basket of Options to explain the concepts of climate smartness, adaptation and

19
adaptive capacity. The DAs also presents the range of interventions available, summarising
the relevant infotech briefs. DAs and woreda experts should ensure that the CSA
interventions that are communally decided upon are linked as closely as possible to any
SWC measures implemented previously. The meeting should therefore review the SWC
measures to help the community create its own ‘climate-smart landscape’.
The infotech briefs are the basis for both action and budget planning. During the community
meetings, therefore, beneficiaries can be identified and common-interest groups (CIGs)
formed, comprising a maximum of 30 community members. If interest is high, more than one
group can be formed.
The combinations of CSA interventions decided upon for a CIG should then be applied on
the same plots of farmland in order to exploit the synergy effects of different interventions.
One famer adopting compost for example, while another farmer is adopting minimum tillage
will not serve the purpose. Each farmer is advised implement a combination of at least two
CSA measures. Having said this, a certain amount of flexibility should be allowed in
combining the number and types of measures. The DA will then facilitate activity planning,
according to the allocated budget and the technical details given in the respective infotech
brief(s).
Implementation then takes place in the form of either piloting / demonstrating a CSA
measure, or scaling it up based on its having been proven appropriate. The DA decides on
the mode of implementation based on the context of the micro-watershed and the
recommendations made in the respective infotech brief. Accompanying training, experience
exchange and periodic monitoring are essential parts of implementation: they must be
included in the annual plan.
At the close of the agricultural season, the next step of the adoption cycle is evaluating CSA
activities by farmers and DAs. The DA organises a field day with the farmers who have
implemented CSA activities; other interested farmers may attend. On site, the farmers then
explain what they have gained (or suffered) as a result of pursuing a given set of CSA
measures, including proposing reasons for success / failure and things they would like to
have changed or done differently. The lessons taken from this highly engaged evaluation
feed into action planning, with modifications being made for the upcoming year. In this way,
CSA activity combinations evolve as practices are modified, dropped or newly taken up by
groups of farmers.
It is always interesting to score CSA activities by they BoO score for reference, and to
generate trends in evolving CSA in a given community. Some farmers may leave their CIG,
being interested to test a completely different CSA combination with another group. Further
details of the steps for integrating CSA into SLM are described in the following chapter
sections, as well as in the infotech briefs.

20
5.2 Integrating CSA interventions into watershed management
planning
As mentioned earlier, CSA interventions on farm land and for livestock development must
build upon the soil- and water-conservation measures which have been already implemented
locally. For example, an area of degraded hillside enclosed for grass and fodder production
provides a good basis for practicing zero grazing and improved animal management.
Recognising that CSA must follow on from, and build upon, SWC and watershed-
management planning, the CBPWMG, which details the processes of both (in Annex 9, for
example), must be read, understood and used to guide CSA implementation.
Figure 7. Integrating CSA into SLM planning

21
Figure 7 presents the process for a 5-year micro-watershed development plan. After each
year of implementation the planning process is repeated based on the existing 5-year plan
and the accumulated annual performance.
Since planning for SWC is heavily input- and budget-oriented, CSA planning must align by
providing accurate budgeting to the regional, and subsequently to the woreda (district) levels
– as per Step 1 in Figure 7. A separate budget allocation for CSA interventions from the
federal to the woreda can thereby be justified.
Meanwhile, although action planning informs the budgeting process and vice versa,
budgeting for CSA interventions is best done following the ‘envelope’ approach. In other
words, an allocated lump sum is provided according to prior defined criteria and which can
be used flexibly according to respective guidelines and infotech briefs. Budgeting also sets
parameters for which activities can realistically be implemented. A lump annual budget is
therefore allocated to the Woreda for CSA interventions.
The DAs then plan the CSA interventions together with the community - see Figure 7 above.
This includes modifying the responsibilities of the Community Watershed Team (CWT) in
order to incorporate CSA interventions into the usual watershed management plans.
While Step 3 is not necessary every year since it is done only for the five-year plan, Step 4 is
a crucial entry point for planning CSA and requires a one-day session of standard annual
watershed planning dedicated to it. Step 4 should (i) raise awareness about climate-sensitive
agriculture, (ii) present the interventions promoted under SLMP and (iii) identify CSA
interventions for the forthcoming year. A standard session outline should be developed for
guiding the DAs through their coordination of the process.
Both during CSA intervention and at the end of the cropping season, farmers, DAs and
woreda experts evaluate the success of the CSA measures applied. They explore the
necessity for modification of activities and their associated inputs. For crop activities on
farmland, special consideration needs to be given for the time difference between the
agricultural season and the financial year. Implementation during the main cropping season
(meher) should commence with the first big rains in June / July, which is close to the end of
the financial year.
Cut-and-carry cattle feeding

22
5.3 Building combinations of CSA interventions
The greatest momentum of sustainable ‘climate smartness’ can be achieved by combining
several CSA measures. For example, the climate smartness of conservation agriculture
comprises the three single measures by which it is defined – minimum tillage, soil coverage
and crop rotation. Only combined are the three measures like to generate any sustained
climate-smart agricultural practice. DAs should manage planning sessions to identify the
strongest combinations of CSA measures appropriate to the context. The following table
categorises interventions by land-use type.
Table 3: CSA interventions and their effectiveness by land-use type
CSA Intervention Hillside Farmland Homestead Grazing
Land
Area enclosure XXX XX
Planting trees XXX XX X
Physical SWC measures XXX X X XX
Forage production XXX XX X XX
Beekeeping XX XXX
Agro-forestry XXX X
Green manuring XXX X
Minimum tillage XXX
Mulching / crop-residue mg’t XXX X
Crop rotation XXX X
Intercropping XXX XX
Planting with space XXX
Applying bio-fertiliser XXX X
Applying compost XX XXX X
Applying lime XXX X X
Changing crop varieties XXX XXX
Changing crop type XXX X
Multi-storey cropping X XXX
Composting XXX
Producing biogas XXX
Water harvesting and storage XX X XXX
Producing diverse vegetable
and fruit varieties (>10)
X XXX
Using fuel-saving stoves XXX
Establishing wood lots X XX X
Controlled grazing X X XX XXX
Manure management XXX X
Fattening animals for
destocking
XX
Limiting grazing livestock units
on watershed level
X X X X
Breed improvement for
destocking
XXX X
Switching from large to small
ruminants for destocking
XXX X
Poultry production to mitigate
GHG emissions
XXX
Improving market access for
destocking
X

23
Building combinations of CSA measures also favours particular land-use types. This manual
focuses on farmland interventions, for which the strengthening of soil systems should be
given highest priority. Similarly, homestead-based livestock interventions should be strongly
linked to forage production on farmland or hillsides.
In addition to careful observation of BoO ratings, it is also necessary to consider the
feasibility of certain combinations of CSA interventions. The list below proposes guidelines
for combining activities for effective and sustainable adoption.
Forage grown between fields of crops
Guidelines for combining climate-smart interventions
 Combinations are basically land-use based but can combine measures from various
land-use types and livestock.
 Combinations should have at least two key interventions and 1-3 optional
interventions added. Farmland-based interventions must include at least one inter-
vention which has direct positive effects on soil fertility.
 A combination should have a maximum of five measures. More than this would be
unrealistic to implement. Combinations should aim to balance promoting ‘hardware’
(inputs) and ‘software’ (practices).
Annex 2 provides a few examples of combinations of CSA interventions for various land-use
types.
Initial identification of CSA interventions should be based on the recommended options, as
outlined in the infotech briefs. As has been stressed, CSA interventions should be combined

24
in order to try and optimise gains, based on the local context and giving consideration to
basket-of-options ratings. Also, since the scope of intended interventions and the number of
target beneficiaries is based on the available budget allocation, a prioritisation of
interventions will most likely be necessary. It is the development agent’s (DA’s) responsibility
to facilitate the process. Planning should include following items:
o A list of interventions to be implemented, in the correct order and combination.
o The number of male- and female-headed households who will implement the CSA
interventions – refer also to beneficiary identification.
o Acreage (land size) by household on which the combination of farmland or
homestead interventions will be implemented.
o Types and quantities of inputs needed.
o Expected commitment and contributions from the beneficiaries in terms of labour and
inputs (in kind or in cash).
o All monitoring parameters are to be recorded and reported in order to ensure
successful implementation and performance.
o Training needs and training plan.
Table 4 (below) is a template for a CSA intervention plan. It includes four sample
interventions as examples. The process of aggregating community CSA plans should be the
same as for that of community watershed plans.
Row planting with forage production

25
Table 4: CSA Intervention Planning Template

26
5.4 Identifying beneficiaries – group approach
The sub-target groups of smallholder farmers under SLMP are women-headed households,
poor households, landless households, youth, landless youth and most vulnerable people.
No intervention can reach or be suitable for every sub-target group, but selecting the most
suitable target group(s) depends on the intervention and the local context; guidance listings
are given in each infotech brief.
Identifying farmers need to be linked to past SWC measures because useful data on the
composition of the community will already be available from exercises conducted under
CBPWD implementation - see especially Annexes 2, 8 and 9 of the guideline.
Identifying beneficiaries for participatory farmland interventions poses more challenges than
identifying beneficiaries for community-based interventions because the benefits generated
more easily tend to favour benefits to certain individuals rather than to whole communities –
or indeed to the ecosystem itself. This challenge should be addressed by following
establishing groups to collectively carry out farmland and homestead interventions. The type
of group and the way they operate differs depending on the intervention: it could be a self-
help group, traditional iddir, specific user groups (UGs) or common-interest groups (CIGs).
(See also CBPWMG Annex 2).
Working with farmer groups
Common-interest groups, if not existing already, will be formed on a voluntary basis for those
farmers who show a keen interest in implementing a combination of CSA interventions. The
maximum group size depends on the types of intervention but should not exceed 30
members. If more than 30 farmers are interested, the DA should form two groups during the
planning session. The members of a group implementing farmland interventions should have

27
their fields as close to each other as possible. The arrangements of groups will also vary
depending on the combination of interventions – as specified in each of the infotech briefs.
For example, a group may share inputs together, produce separately, and still market
together.
It should be remembered that the most vulnerable to climate change are not necessarily the
poorest members of the community. Rather, they are those who will be affected most
severely by adverse trends or disaster. The two categories must be clearly distinguished
when identifying beneficiaries.
Operating community owned nurseries is an important aspect of
implementing climate-smart interventions

28
6. Implementing climate-smart agriculture
CSA interventions are implemented in one of two modes, testing mode or up-scaling mode.
Interventions in testing mode will be implemented by one or more demonstration farmers
only, while in up-scaling mode they can be practiced by any stakeholder farmer. In both
cases farmer-to-farmer exchanges should be part of the adoption cycle during and after
implementation. Indeed, they are compulsory in testing mode. Demonstration farmers should
sign an agreement stipulating in detail the responsibilities of implementing the demonstration.
Although the infotech briefs suggest which interventions (and/or combinations of them)
should be implemented in which mode, the community planning team must arrive at the
decision for themselves, having also given consideration to the all implications for inputs and
budgeting. Once again, the relevant infotech brief(s) should be carefully consulted here,
providing most of the information that the DA will need to plan, oversee and monitor the CSA
interventions implemented in his/her locale. The infotech briefs do not provide every single
technical detail that might possibly be required, but they do give important references to
existing practical manuals. The briefs are aimed to serve as open sources of useful
information, but they do only describe CSA interventions to be implemented by farmers;
support-service activities are described separately in this manual, requiring different planning
processes - see Chapter 8).
Testing and scaling up in a community nursery

29
7. Monitoring and evaluation
Responsibility for overall supervision of CSA activities rests on a task team composed of
existing Development Agents (DA) and Kebele / Community Watershed Teams (CWTs)
assigned to the project. This includes project monitoring, for which parameters need to be
defined for all three elements of climate-smart agriculture – productivity, adaptation and
mitigation – and then implemented periodically and in time. In any case progress monitoring
begins with project preparation, by ensuring the involvement of the community.
The productivity or income-generating component of CSA is to be assessed through gross
margin surveys. Conducted once a year, a set of survey forms and database templates are
supplied by the PM&E unit of SLMP and distributed. Annexes 3 to 6 provide examples of
data recording templates for bee keeping, cattle fattening, crop cultivation and poultry
keeping respectively.
It should be remembered that measuring mitigation in agriculture and livestock production is
a difficult and costly process. Mitigation effects are best estimated using internationally
accepted reference formulas, therefore – in this case, using the EXACT tool (see the EXACT
Tool User Manual, FAO 2014). Input data should be identified for each CSA measure and
recorded regularly by an assigned member of the task team.
Farmers’ resilience (ie. their success at adaptation) can be evaluated through a qualitative
lean vulnerability assessment. Beneficiaries are asked in focus group discussions about the
extent to which CSA has strengthened their resilience to the effects of climate change. The
evaluation should be repeated annually, preferably by a small team of external local experts.
Questions can be modified as necessary. An example of how to conduct such a survey has
been documented under GIZ-SLM’s GCCA-E project in February 2016.
Guiding questions for the vulnerability assessment
a) What have you climate signals have you observed during the last ten years?
b) Which effects have you observed from these climate signals recently?
c) What responses to climate effects have you undertaken already?
d) What lessons have you learned since adopted CSA practices?
e) Have you observed any adverse or negative environmental and/or social side
effects?
f) What external inputs have you received?
g) What technical support have you received?
h) Do you think that without the external support (inputs, technical) you continue to apply
the CSA practices?
i) If not, what are the barriers to continuing on your own?
See also the infotech briefs for further details of monitoring parameters for each CSA
measure.

30
8. Strengthening support services
Farmers are continually making adaptations to try and mitigate climate effects. For example,
a common CSA response is adjusting the crop calendar. For farmers to adapt best, however,
support in the form weather forecasting, animal-health services and agricultural extension
services are needed. Some of these support services are detailed below; they will be
considered for strengthening under SLMP-2.
8.1 Access to climate Information and weather forecasts
Improving access to agricultural weather information (about impending drought, heavy
rainfall or temperature-related outbreaks of pests and diseases, for example) is crucial for
putting early warning systems in place and averting potential production losses. Since
forecasts are rarely locally specific, the reliability of forecasts with regard to what actually
happens in the target micro-watersheds should be monitored closely.
Incorporating weather information into farmers’ day-to-day activities helps them to better plan
and adjust their activities. Windows of opportunity and risk – such as timely weeding, insect
pest control and harvesting – shall be communicated in real time to farmers as the season
unfolds. In order to raise farmers’ general awareness about these issues, ten-day forecasts
shall be communicated by radio and mobile phone during the rainy season. Seasonal
forecasts shall also be announced and tips shared regarding crop combinations and
adjustment of the traditional planting schedule to expected time shifts in the arrival of the
upcoming rainy season.
Food and nutritional security related to early warning systems also benefits emergency
assistance, and weather data is a critical factor. Since the mid-1970s, rainfall and
temperature data have been collected and systematically analysed annually, at regional
agricultural research stations, for food-insecure areas of Ethiopia. At federal level this
information feeds into a database of the Disaster Risk Management Early Warning
Commission (DRMEC). Fifty-two agro-meteorological weather stations are piloted now at
regional agricultural research stations in order to supplement 1000 existing weather stations
of the meteorological service. These weather stations not only record precipitation and
temperature but also soil moisture availability and phenotypical observation of crop
development phases. DRMEC then feeds the information into the early warning database of
the National Meteorological Office, which is mandated to inform UN Agencies (such as WFP)
and NGOs so that they can respond to emergencies.

31
Good animal health services support successful sheep fattening
The woreda (district) offices then prepare plans and proposals on how to improve weather
forecast services and disaster warning for farms. Pilots are currently underway using SMS
messaging to farmers’ mobile phones, voice messaging, web (android) applications and
radio programmes. World-wide weather information and Ethiopia’s agro-weather tools are
viewable at www.agrometeiar.gov.et and www.yr.no/ respectively. The assistance paper of
the World Bank Group (March 2015) also gives more information on weather forecasting.
8.2 Strengthening animal health services
Livestock contribute very significantly to GHG emissions within the agriculture sector - see
again Chapter 2. They are also a source not only of meat and milk but also of quick cash in
times of drought. To overcome this ‘trade-off’ there is a common perception that making
livestock rearing can be made ‘climate smart’ only by increasing the productivity per animal.
This does not reduce total GHG emissions from livestock, but rather the emission rate per
unit of produce. The main ways that farmers can improve their animals’ productivity are
through feeding, breeding and husbandry. However, even if these things are optimised,
productivity of meat production per animal will not reduce emissions if farmers hold on to
animals for social purposes or attempted risk reduction and do not sell off unproductive
and/or marketable animals timely. Strengthening livestock marketing has therefore been
included as an activity with positive mitigation which supports faster turnover of marketable
animals.
Various options for improving animal productivity are listed in the basket of options.
Sometimes these practices require additional external support services, especially animal
health services. Although the service-provision infrastructure itself is probably not climate
neutral, strengthening these key services will be considered for support under SLMP-2.

32
9. Challenges to implementing climate-smart agriculture
An important challenge to successfully achieving sustained CSA is trying to raise productivity
gains as well as mitigating climate and adapting (Corner-Dolloff 2015). One-off agricultural
activities are rarely capable of satisfying all three dimensions at once, hence the rationale for
combination of CSA measures which are relevant to the local context and which meet
farmers’ needs. Income-generating activities (IGAs) must not only enhance productivity but
must also be climate smart. Longer-term project commitments of, say, five to ten years, may
be necessary to allow farmers to experiment with new techniques, to self-evaluate and to
perpetuate CSA sustainably.
Another challenge to CSA implementation is balancing input distribution (ie. ‘hardware’
support) vs. knowledge transfer (‘software’ provision). This relates to the aforementioned
notion of achieving climate smartness by enhancing how things are being done rather than
necessarily changing what is being done. Perhaps the greatest challenge to CSA arises
because the benefits of adaptation and mitigation effects do not go straight into the farmers’
pocket, as pure income-generating activities (IGAs) do, but rather they benefit the
environment and wider society as a whole.
CSA is knowledge intensive, requiring a shift toward agro-ecology over conventional
agricultural intensification. It therefore requires the development of farmers’ capacity and
knowledge, followed by the promotion of behavioural changes and, in some cases, the
modification of age-old farming traditions or habits. In many instances, knowledge and
working relationships between the research and agricultural extension sectors need to
improve (Temu, Mwanje, Mogotsi 2007).
Another challenge is how to mitigate climate change in the livestock sector, which is hugely
economically important in Ethiopia. Changes in livestock-management practices such as
shifting from extensive grazing to zero or rotational grazing are among the most promising
options (IAASTD 2009; IPCC 2014). However, they require intensive knowledge transfer,
changes from traditional practice, and behavioural change. Simply substituting breeds of
livestock with a goal to attain higher feed efficiencies is unlikely to have any lasting or
meaningful effect. Farmers may be unwilling to reduce their livestock stocking rates due to
their shorter-term livelihood needs.
Last, but not least, the difficulty of measuring adaptation benefits that arise from individual
agricultural activities is ever present. Adaptive capacity is a multi-faceted issue involving
longer-term goals, which must not be reduced to, or confused with, increased productivity
(Ellis 1998, DFID 1999, Neubert et al 2011, Rottach 2012, Neubert 2013, World Bank 2015).

33
10. Infotech briefs
Infotech briefs aim to detail all the necessary information for climate-smart agriculture
interventions that can be implemented by farmers on their farmland or homesteads. In the
first edition, seven infotechs are presented. A standardised structure for the briefs is
proposed below.
Box 6: Standardised structure of infotech briefs
Infotech title
Brief description of CSA measure, including optimum land-use types and the
intervention’s linkages to SWC measures.
Assessment of climate-relevant potential (adaptation, mitigation and income
generation) of the CSA measure, describing the expected effects of the measure with
regard to adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate-change effects. Descriptions are based on
ratings and justifications detailed in the Basket of Options (see Annex 1). An estimate of the
economic benefits to the farmer, as well as to the ecosystem and to the community at large,
are also given here, as well as whether the measure needs further testing or whether it can
be implemented and up-scaled directly.
Geographical range and land-use type of the CSA measure
The agro-ecological zone(s) and the land-use type(s) for which the CSA measure is most
suitable, and why, are described here. Land-use categories given are degraded hillside,
farmland, grazing land and homestead.
Level of organisation or group formation required
An enclosure will need a different group makeup than soil-fertility management. This chapter
also describes which part of the CSA measure can be performed as a group and which
could be done as individuals. For example, beekeeping may be done individually but the
marketing of honey and other products could be done as a group.
Potential target group(s) of the CSA measure are listed here. They may include poor,
vulnerable, women-headed households, the landless or young people. The chapter should
also describe to what extent the CSA measure is gender specific.
Inputs and skills required for the CSA measure
All inputs are linked to at least one accompanying management or implementation practice.
For example, drought-resistant seed provision should be combined with intercropping, row
planting, reduced tillage and/or crop-residue management. Also outlined here are the
knowledge and skills required for implementation of the measure, forming a basis for
identifying training needs. (See also steps of implementation).
Sustainability outlook describes the elements that need to be put into place for the CSA
measure to be sustainably practiced.
Possibilities for up-scaling outlines the conditions (institutional, economic, social and
environmental) that will facilitate replication and up-scaling of the CSA measure.

34
Monitoring the performance of the intervention
This chapter provides measurable parameters for monitoring and evaluating performance of
the measure with regard to all three aspects of CSA - adaptation, mitigation and livelihood
(income generation and measurable eco-system benefits.
References and contact details lists additional technical materials and references for
further research into the CSA measure.
Steps of implementation (i) details the steps for identifying beneficiaries (at farmland or
homestead level) through organised village meetings, and (ii) identifies and quantifies with
the selected beneficiaries the conditions, inputs and practices for implementation of the CSA
intervention. Mode of input delivery, beneficiary contributions and repayment modalities
should be identified with the beneficiaries and documented.

35
11. References
Adger, N (2000) Social and Ecological Resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human
Geography 24 (3): 347–364.
Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo
and P. Yanda (2007) Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and
C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 433-467.
Balwya, M. & Rosenstock, T (2015) A unique partnership and systemic approach to food
insecurity and climate change in Africa. Presentation by the Africa CSA Alliance at Global
Landscapes Forum, Lima, Peru, 6-7 December, 2015.
CIDSE (2014) ‘Climate-Smart Agriculture’: the Emperor’s new clothes? Downloaded from
www.cidse.org/resources
Colomb et al (2012) Review of GHG calculators in Agriculture and Forestry Sectors: a
Guideline for Appropriate Choice and Use of Landscape Based Tool. FAO/ADEME
(accessed: 28.04.2016): http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/review-of-ghg-tools-in-agriculture/en/
Conway, G (2013) Agricultural resilience: what do we know and what do we need to know?
Brussels Briefing n. 30 Agricultural Resilience in the Face of Crises and Shocks, Brussels,
Belium, March 4, 2013.
Conway, G (2015) Food production and food security under threat by climate change.
Presentation for the Climate-Smart Agriculture Conference. Montpellier, France, March 15,
2015.
Corner-Dolloff, C (2015) Partnerships for Scaling Climate Smart Agriculture (P4S-CSA):
Linking Experiences between Latin America, Africa and Asia. Presentation by CIAT Climate
change, Agriculture and Food Security Group and ICRAF.
DFID (1999): Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheet: Introduction to the Sustainable
Livelihoods Framework. London, UK (accessed 12.12.2012):
http://www.ennonline.net/resources/667
Ellis, F (1998) Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. The Journal of
Development Studies 35 (1): 1-38.
FAO (2011) Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, Contributing to food security and
sustainability in a changing world. Outcomes of an expert workshop held by FAO and the
platform on agrobiodiversity research from 14-16 April 2010 in Rome, Italy.
http://agrobiodiversityplatform.org/files/2011/04/PAR-FAO-book_lr.pdf
FAO (2011) Priority Themes for Climate change Adaptation. Infographic (accessed:
02.04.2016): http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/224591/
FAO (2013) Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Rome, Italy (accessed: 15.03.2016):
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e.pdf

36
FAO (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals
by Sinks: 1990 – 2011 Analysis. FAO Working Paper Series: ESS/14-02. FAO Statistics
Division. Rome, Italy.
FAO (2014) EXACT tool: User Manual. Estimating and Targeting GHG reductions in
Agriculture. FAO/World Bank/IRD. (accessed: 28.04.2016) www.fao.org/tc/exact/user-
guidelines
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2016): Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution (INDC) of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
GIZ-GCCA-E team (February 2016): A “Lean Vulnerability Analysis” on Adaptation to Climate
Variability. Compiled by the GIZ-GCCA-E team under the Sustainable Land Management
Program, February 2016,
Gold, M. (2007): Sustainable Agriculture. Definitions and terms. Baltimore (US Department of
Agriculture).
IAASTD (2009): Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Summary for Global Decision Makers.
Washington D.C. (accessed 12.09.12): http://www.agassessment.org
IPCC (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.
MoA (2014) Project Implementation Manual for Sustainable Land Management Project-2
(2014-2018). Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
MoANR (2015) Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Field Manual: Zero Draft. CSA Working
Group. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, October 2015,
Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
MoARD (2005) Community Based Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Munang, R (2014) The imperative for Landscape Approaches for Improved Food Security
Climate Resilience in Africa. Presentation at Landscapes for People, Food and Nature in
Africa Conference, July 1-3, 2014.
Neubert, S et al (2011) Agricultural Development in a Changing Climate. In-creasing
resilience to climate change and economic shocks in crop production. Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn, Germany.
Neubert, S (2013) The situation of smallholders under conditions of degradation and climate
change. Presentation at Centre for Rural Development (SLE), Humboldt University, Berlin,
Germany, September 18, 2013.
Rottach, P (2012) Introduction to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate change Adaptation.
Presentation at the Centre for Rural Development (SLE), Humboldt University Berlin, March
5, 2012.
Temu, A; Mwanje, I; Mogotsi, K (2007) Improving Agriculture and Natural Ressource
Education in Africa: A stitch in time. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF-CGIAR) / ANAFE,
Nairobi, Kenya.

37
Tröger, S. et. al. (2011) Failing Seasons, Ailing Societies, Climate Change and the Meaning
of Adaptation in Ethiopia, HoA-REC and GTZ with Support from Heinrich Böll Foundation
Ethiopia. Download from www.hoarec.org.
UNEP (2016) Loss and Damage: The Role of Ecosystem Services. United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. www.unep.org
World Bank (2015) Increasing agricultural production and resilience through improved agro-
meteorological services. A report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and
the World Bank Group on Agro-Meteorological Service Provision in Kenya and Ethiopia.
World Resource Institute (2016): CIAT Climate Data Explorer. Online: http://cait2.wri.org/
(accessed 19.10.2016).

38
12. Annexes
Annex 1. Ratings and justifications of climate-smart agriculture measures (Basket of Options)
Degraded hillside
Planting trees (including enrichment planting and buffer planting)
CSA pillar Direct effect on Rating Justification
Adaptation
Forest degradation +++ improves forest quality through planting of diverse tree species, demarcated forest boundaries and reduced pressure on natural forest
through increased biomass
Soil degradation ++ improves soil cover (depending on litter raking), reduces run-off water and associated erosion, increases biomass and maintains
natural drainage
Water availability ++
enhances infiltration, maintains soil moisture and supports even distribution of water flow throughout the year (depending on the species
type)
Soil fertility + continuously supplies soil OM and maintains natural nutrient cycle, though its utilization extracts biomass (nutrients)
Livestock pressure NDR no direct relation
Biodiversity ++ maintains fauna and flora and other micro-organisms, protects the forest and facilitates the regeneration of native species
Subtotal 10
Mitigation Reducing emission ++ reduces emissions by enhancing forest carbon stocks and reducing protected-area encroachment; serves as source of biomass energy
Storing carbon + reforests harvested areas through increased soil-organic and biomass carbon stocks
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases utilisation potential of the forest, enhances ecosystem services and provides alternative income sources
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 14
Forage production
Adaptation Forest degradation NDR no direct relation
Soil degradation ++ increases soil cover and stabilises soil
Water availability + improves infiltration and maintains soil moisture
Soil fertility + increases soil OM

39
Livestock pressure ++ reduces pressure on grazing land
Biodiversity + adds species variety
Subtotal 7
Mitigation Reducing emissions 0 (assuming degraded soils have negligible emissions)
Storing carbon + sequesters carbon continuously
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ improves the productivity of the degraded area, indirectly improves livestock productivity
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 10
Beekeeping
Adaptation
Forest degradation ++ reduces natural degradation through cross pollination; creates awareness, ownership and responsibility for maintaining the forest
Soil degradation NDR no direct relation
Water availability NDR no direct relation
Soil fertility NDR no direct relation
Biodiversity ++ contributes to biodiversity maintenance through cross pollination
Subtotal 4
Mitigation Reducing emissions - the processing of beekeeping might cause emissions depending on the carbon foot print of the activity
Storing carbon NDR no direct relation
Subtotal -1
Livelihood Increasing productivity +++ increases farm productivity by generating diversified and additional income through honey and wax production, as well as through bee
colony multiplication
Subtotal 3
CSA Total rating 6
Area enclosure
Soil degradation ++ improves soil cover
Water availability ++ improved soil cover enhances water infiltration and maintains soil moisture
Soil fertility -- increases the supply of soil organic matter and maintains nutrient recycling, but also decreases manure availability from animals
Livestock pressure NDR increases pressure on grazing land but decreases the pressure on degraded land

40
Biodiversity + natural regeneration improves fauna and flora diversity
Subtotal 3
Mitigation Reducing emissions + regenerates the degraded area
Storing carbon + natural regeneration enhances carbon sinks
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity - comes with the costs of establishing and managing enclosure; increases forage availability (for cut-and-carry)
Subtotal -1
CSA Total rating 4
Physical soil and water conservation (SWC)
Adaptation
Forest degradation NDR no direct relation
Soil degradation +++ retains top soil and improves soil depth
Water availability +++ retains moisture, increases infiltration and increases groundwater recharging
Soil fertility - physical structures disturb or remove top soil, thereby possibly reducing soil fertility
Biodiversity - disturbs soil biota
Subtotal 4
Mitigation Reducing emissions NDR no direct relation
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity - comes with high initial investment and high maintenance costs, but improves productivity of marginal lands
Subtotal -1
CSA Total rating 3
Farm land
Minimum tillage
Soil degradation ++ minimises soil disturbance
Water availability +++ improves infiltration rates and increases water-holding capacity of the soil
Soil fertility ++ adds soil OM

41
Livestock pressure + reduces the need for draught animals
Biodiversity + Maintains and / or improves soil biota
Subtotal 9
Mitigation Reducing emissions ++ reduces GHG emissions from soil through longer soil cover periods
Storing carbon + increases soil carbon through crop residues and cover crops
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ saves cost and time for ploughing; indirectly increases crop productivity through improved soil conditions
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 14
Agroforestry
Adaptation
Soil degradation +++ retains topsoil and improves soil depth by increasing soil cover
Water availability +++ retains moisture, increases infiltration and increases groundwater recharging
Soil fertility ++ adds soil OM, improves soil porosity, fixes nitrogen and improves the forage base
Livestock pressure + improves forage base
Biodiversity + improves soil biota, hosts a variety of insects
Subtotal 10
Mitigation Reducing emissions NDR traps atmospheric carbon by photosynthesis
Storing carbon ++ increases biomass by trapping atmospheric carbon
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ improves livestock productivity through increased forage availability
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 14
Mulching
Soil degradation +++ improves soil cover, increases soil OM, shields soil particles from rain and wind
Water availability +++ maintains soil moisture and enhances water-holding capacity
Soil fertility + adds soil OM
Biodiversity ++ improves soil biota

42
Subtotal 9
Mitigation Reducing emissions ++ reduces GHG emissions from soil through improved soil cover
Storing carbon + decomposition of residues increases soil organic matter
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases crop yields through the fertilising effect of adding soil organic matter
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 13
Green manuring
Adaptation
Soil degradation + improves soil cover, increases soil OM, shields soil particles from rain and wind
Water availability ++ maintains soil moisture and enhances water-holding capacity
Soil fertility ++ adds soil OM
Subtotal 7
Mitigation Reducing emissions ++ reduces GHG emissions from soil through improved soil cover
Storing carbon + decomposition of the residues increases soil organic matter
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases crop yields through the fertilising effect of adding soil organic matter
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 11
Applying compost
Adaptation
Soil degradation ++ organic matter soil nutrients are better maintained
Water availability ++ enhances water-holding capacity through increased soil OM
Soil fertility +++ adds to soil OM
Biodiversity ++ maintains and / or improves soil biota
Subtotal 9

43
Mitigation Reducing emissions -- increases GHG emissions if exposed
Storing carbon ++ the absorption of compost directly increases soil organic matter
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ directly increases crop yields – depending on compost quality and amount applied
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 11
Crop-residue management
Adaptation
Soil degradation ++ improves soil cover, increases soil OM, shields soil particles from rain and wind
Water availability + maintains soil moisture and enhances water-holding capacity
Soil fertility + adds soil OM
Biodiversity + improves soil biota
Subtotal 5
Mitigation Reducing emissions + reduces GHG emissions from soil through improved soil cover
Storing carbon + decomposition of the residues increases soil organic matter
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases crop yields through the fertilising effect of adding soil organic matter; reduces costs of tillage
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 8
Intercropping
Adaptation
Soil degradation ++ increases soil cover, increases SOM and stabilises soil
Water availability + retains moisture and increases infiltration
Soil fertility + diversifies soil-nutrient utilisation
Biodiversity + adds variety to cropped land
Subtotal 5
Mitigation Reducing emissions + no direct relation

44
Storing carbon + no direct relation
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity + improves productivity through fertility improvement; controls weeds; reduces pest damage; reduces risk of crop failure
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 8
Planting with space
Adaptation
Soil degradation + stimulates root growth and thereby increases SOM and stabilises soil
Water availability ++ improves water use efficiency per plant through increased root growth and wider spacing
Soil fertility ++ manual weeding and soil aeration increase nitrogen fixing and improves soil biota
Subtotal 6
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ fewer seeds are needed as a result of healthier, higher-yielding individual plants, reduced fertiliser and pest control, but possibly with a
higher labour requirement, especially for weeding / aeration.
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 8
Forage production
Adaptation
Soil degradation + retains top soil and improves soil depth
Water availability + retains moisture, increases infiltration and increases groundwater recharging
Soil fertility + adds SOM, improves soil porosity and fixes nitrogen
Livestock pressure ++ improves forage base
Biodiversity + improves soil biota, adds species and hosts insects
Subtotal 6

45
Mitigation Reducing emissions NDR traps atmospheric carbon through photosynthesis
Storing carbon + increases biomass through photosynthesis
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity + improves livestock productivity through increased forage availability
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 8
Applying bio-fertiliser
Adaptation
Soil fertility +++ increases rhizobiums and biota; enhances nitrogen fixing
Subtotal 4
Mitigation Reducing emissions + directly improves nitrogen fixing
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ increases crop yields through increased soil fertility
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 7
Crop rotation
Adaptation
Soil degradation + stabilises soil, maintains soil quality
Water availability + retains soil moisture
Soil fertility + diversifies soil nutrient utilisation
Biodiversity + adds varieties to crop land
Subtotal 4

46
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ improves productivity through fertility improvement; controls weeds; reduces pest damage
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 6
Applying lime to acidic soil
Adaptation
Soil degradation + improves soil quality and / or reverts soil degradation
Soil fertility +++ improves PH of acidic soils
Biodiversity NDR no direct relation
Subtotal 4
Mitigation Reducing emissions - increases C emission
Subtotal -1
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases crop yields through increased soil fertility
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 4
Changing crop varieties
Adaptation
Soil degradation +
reduces period of soil cover if the improved variety has a shorter vegetation period; improves SOM if the improved variety produces
more biomass
Soil fertility + increases SOM (if the improved variety produces more biomass)
Biodiversity - an improved variety normally replaces a number of different traditional varieties
Subtotal 1
Storing carbon 0 directly reduces period of soil cover if the improved variety has a shorter vegetation period (which is often the case); improves SOM if
the improved variety produces more biomass

47
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ increases crop yields
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 3
Homestead
Multi-storey cropping
Adaptation
Soil degradation +++ increases soil cover; increases SOM; stabilises soil
Water availability +++ retains moisture; increases infilitration; increases groundwater recharging
Soil fertility ++ adds SOM, improves soil porousity, fixes nitrogen
Livestock pressure + improves forage base if forage trees or shrubs are used
Biodiversity ++ improves soil biota, adds species, hosts varieties of fauna
Subtotal 11
Storing carbon ++ increases biomass
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ adds biomass production through more diverse farm outputs; reduces risk of total crop failure
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 15
Woodlot establishment
Adaptation Forest degradation +++ lessens pressure on natural forest
Soil degradation ++ improves soil cover (depending on litter raking)
Water availability + iImproves infiltration and maintains soil moisture (depending on the species type)
Soil fertility + adds SOM
Livestock pressure ND no direct relation

48
Biodiversity ++ facilitates the regeneration of native species
Subtotal 9
Mitigation Reducing emissions + provides alternative energy sources and reduce natural forest degradation if used with energy-efficent stoves
Storing carbon ++ increases soil carbon sequestration and below-ground biomass carbon stocks
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity + provides alternative income sources from selling the wood
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 13
Making compost
Adaptation
Soil degradation ++ soil nutrients are better maintained through the organic matter
Water availability ++ enhances water-holding capacity through increased SOM
Soil fertility +++ increases SOM
Biodiversity +++ maintains and improves soil biota
Subtotal 10
Mitigation Reducing emissions - increases GHG emissions if exposed
Storing carbon + the absorption of compost directly increases SOM
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ directly increases crop yields – depending on compost quality and amount
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 11
Using fuel-saving stoves
Adaptation Forest degradation +++ reduces fuelwood requirements
Biodiversity ++ reduces negative impacts on biodiversity in the forest through lesser fuel wood extraction

49
Subtotal 5
Mitigation Reducing emissions +++ reduces emissions by lowering deforestation and forest degradation from more efficient use of fuelwood
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity +++ reduces fuelwood consumption; reduces fuelwood procurement costs
Subtotal 3
CSA Total rating 11
Producing biogas
Adaptation
Forest degradation +++ reduces pressure on natural forest
Soil degradation 0 no direct relation
Water availability 0 no direct relation
Soil fertility 0 no direct relation
Livestock pressure 0 no direct relation
Biodiversity ++ reduces deforestation by providing the alternative energy source
Subtotal 5
Mitigation Reducing emissions +++ reduces methane emission - with proper manure management
Storing carbon 0 no direct relation
Subtotal 3
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ reduces fuelwood costs
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 10
Water harvesting and storage
Adaptation
Soil degradation + minimises excessive, unused roof runoff and fluvial erosion; allows for continous watering and thus reduces wind erosion; drip irrigation
increases the accuracy of water application
Water availability +++

50
Subtotal 4
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++
additional water in dry season increases productivity
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 6
Production diversity of vegetables and fruit varieties
Adaptation
Soil degradation + stabilises top layer
Water availability + maintains soil moisture
Soil fertility + increases SOM
Biodiversity + adds new / improved varieties
Subtotal 4
Storing carbon NDR very small effect
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity + adds additional value as a nutritional or monetary income source
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 5
Communal grazing land (including pasture)
Area enclosure

51
Soil degradation ++
improves soil cover and SOM
Water availability ++ improved soil cover enhances water infiltration and maintains soil moisture
Soil fertility -- decreases manure from animals
Livestock pressure 0 increases pressure on grazing land (leakage effect) but decreases pressure on degraded land
Biodiversity + natural regeneration improves the diversity of fauna and flora
Subtotal 3
Mitigation Reducing emissions NDR no direct relation, positive effect only if total number of livestock units is reduced (compare definitions of 'leakage')
Storing carbon + enhances carbon sinks through natural regeneration
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity - comes with costs for establishing and managing enclosures; increases forage availability for cut-and-carry
Subtotal -1
CSA Total rating 3
Controlled grazing
Adaptation
Soil degradation + improves soil cover by minimising soil compaction and disturbance
Livestock pressure 0 no direct relation - the same stocking rate can be maintained with this measure.
Subtotal 1
Mitigation Reducing emissions NDR no direct relation; positive effect only if total number of livestock units is reduced (compare definitions of 'leakage')
Storing carbon + enhances carbon sinks through improved soil cover
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity + increases grass availability and livestock productivity
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 3

52
Livestock and poultry (irrespective of a particular land use type)
Manure management
Adaptation
Soil degradation ++ improves soil quality and hinders soil movement
Water availability ++ improves soil quality and increases infilitration
Soil fertility +++ adds organic matter
Subtotal 9
Mitigation Reducing emissions + reduces methane emissions through proper manure management
Storing carbon + increases soil carbon stocks
Subtotal 2
Livelihood Increasing productivity ++ improves land fertility
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 13
Fattening of sheep / goats / cattle aimed for destocking
Adaptation
Soil degradation + encourages destocking of livestock
Soil fertility 0 no direct relation
Livestock pressure ++ no direct relation
Subtotal 3
Mitigation Reducing emissions 0 the likelihood of destocking is very small.
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity + household farming productivity increases through the production of eggs and poultry meat
Subtotal 1

53
CSA Total rating 4
Limiting the number of grazing livestock units per micro-watershed
Adaptation
Forest degradation +++ regulatory measures (by-laws) and their successful enforcement can directly affect the impact of livestock on degraded areas
Soil fertility - limiting the number of livestock will also limit the availability of manure
Livestock pressure +++ regulatory measures (by-laws) and their successful enforcement can directly affect the impact of livestock on degraded areas
Subtotal 5
Mitigation Reducing emissions 0 reduction of emissions depends on the limits set for numbers of livestock
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity -
depending on limits set and the management system, productivity is likely to decrease if not combined with other intensification
measures
Subtotal -1
CSA Total rating 4
Breed improvement for destocking
Adaptation
Soil degradation + reduces pressure on degradation if combined with increased cut-and-carry feeding
Livestock pressure + has an effect if increased productivity per animal goes along with decreased stocking rates and/or changes in management toward cut-
and-carry feeding
Subtotal 2

54
Mitigation Reducing emissions 0
reduces CH4 emissions if higher productivity per animal accompanies overall herd-size reduction; the effect could be negative if breed
improvement and bigger and more productive animals do not accompany overall herd-size reduction (destocking)
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity +
fewer animals generally reduce productivity at herd level, depending on the level of productivity of the individual animals. Positive
compensation effect from better breeds is often diffcult to achieve because of higher management requirements and costs - especially
feed and healthcare
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 3
Improving market access for destocking
Adaptation
Livestock pressure ++ improved access to markets will encourage sale of more animals and thereby encouraging destocking
Subtotal 2
Subtotal 0
Livelihood Increasing productivity + improved marketing will increase the productivity of the households’ livestock-keeping activities.
Subtotal 1
CSA Total rating 3
Switching from large to small ruminants aiming at de-stocking

55
Adaptation
Forest degradation - possible negative effect as goats are known for being particularly destructive in already degraded areas
Soil degradation + compared to cattle, small ruminants have smaller impact on soil erosion because of their lighter weight
Water availability + compared to cattle, small ruminants have smaller impact on soil erosion because of their lighter weight
Soil fertility - small ruminants leave less manure on the grazed area than cattle
Livestock pressure + per number of heads, the pressure on grazing area is less with small ruminants than with cattle
small ruminants can destroy strongly degraded areas where cattle can’t even survive any more
Subtotal 1
Mitigation Reduced emissions + reduces CH4 emissions if the switc to smaller ruminants goes along with a reduction of total livestock units in the micro-watershed
Subtotal 1
Livelihood Increasing productivity -
since cattle have a higher value in terms of total live weight, switching to smaller animals may reduce overall productivity for a
household
Subtotal -1
CSA Total rating 1
Poultry production (as a means of switching to less GHG-emitting animals)
Adaptation
Soil degradation 1 encourages destocking of livestock, although the likelihood of destocking because of poultry is very small
Subtotal 1
Mitigation Reducing emissions -1 although the likelihood of destocking because of poultry is very small
Subtotal -1
Livelihood Increasing productivity 2 Households’ farming productivity is likely to increase through the production of eggs and poultry meat
Subtotal 2
CSA Total rating 2

56
Annex 2: Examples of land use-based CSA combinations
As can be seen from the relation to the total score of 18+6+3=27, no single climate-
smart agriculture measure is strong in all three components of adaptation, mitigation
and livelihood. Combinations of measures are therefore recommended.
Combinations with a strong focus adaptation are often proposed, but not more than
five single measures are included in a combination. Recommended combinations are
based on one or two key interventions, with additional measures added with
possibility for flexibility (green manuring or mulching, for example).
Recommendations for combinations state that at least three out of the possible five
measures can be implemented without depending on external inputs, especially on
farmland. Also there, at least one measure should directly improve soil fertility,
examples being compost application, bio-fertiliser or minimum tillage. Crop rotation,
intercropping, green manuring, crop residue management or mulching can be added
alternatively. Other optional measures like row planting or Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) can significantly strengthen resilience of crops. The following
table proposes an example of farmland-based combinations with strong adaptation
ratings.
A combination of CSA measures for sustainable crop production on farmland
Direct effect of CSA measure on... Adaptation Mitigation Livelihood CSA
Conservation agriculture 7 1 1 9
Applying compost 9 0 2 11
Agro-forestry 8 4 2 14
Planting with space / row planting 2 0 2 4
Total CSA rating of combination 26 5 7 38
This combination does not include the establishment of soil- and water-conservation
(SWC) measures because, although important, their investment costs are high.
Changes in crop variety are a popular means of climate-smart agriculture, but unless
the new variety has clearly defined properties with regard to negative climate signals
such as drought resistance or shorter vegetation period, the effect is visible through
increased yields only. At the same time, hybrid varieties tend to increase the
dependency of farmers on external seed supply, which actually reduces their
resilience. Meanwhile, strengthening homestead-based resilience focuses on
diversifying food, cash crops, forage and animal production. Below is another
adaptation-focused combination.
A combination of measures for diversified homestead-based production
Diversified production of vegetable
and fruit varieties
4 0 2 6
Water harvesting and storage 4 0 2 6
Producing compost 10 0 3 13
Poultry production 1 -1 2 2
Multi-storey cropping 10 3 2 15
A good CSA combination should generate at least ten varieties of fruit, vegetable,
forage, spices and animal varieties. Multi-storey cropping is a strong measure for

57
effectively increasing diversity, while water harvesting and regular compost making
should be a must in all homestead climate-smart combinations as they assure a high
level of production of fruits and vegetables. Homestead-based measures can easily
be combined with household energy measures, poultry or fish production,
beekeeping or animal fattening.
Making livestock production climate smart poses specific challenges since livestock
contribute significantly to greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions as well as being very
important for the livelihoods of farming households in the Ethiopian highlands. Simply
reducing the number of animals cannot be the answer, but increasing productivity per
animal can increase climate smartness. There seems to be consensus that
increasing productivity has to start from feeding rather than from breeding. Climate-
smart combinations for livestock should therefore centre on forage production. The
following table proposes one combination to this end.
A combination of livestock-based CSA measures
Forage production 6 2 1 9
Improving market access
(aimed at destocking)
2 0 1 3
Manure management 8 2 2 12
Limiting the number of grazing
livestock units at micro-watershed
level
5 0 1 6
Manure management and forage production are very strong contributory measures
to making livestock climate-smart: they should be included in any livestock-based
combination. Although not very significant in the rating, meanwhile, improving market
access can foster higher turnover of marketable animals.
A combination of CSA measures for degraded hillside
Area enclosure 7 4 1 12
Forage production 8 2 2 12
Physical SWC 2 0 1 3
Planting trees 10 5 1 16
Beekeeping 3 -1 3 5
It should always be remembered that watershed development starts ‘from the top of
the watershed’. Enclosures are proven to be highly a effective CSA measure (and
not only for degraded hillsides), but as the benefits reaped are not immediate,
measures such as forage production and physical soil- and water-conservation
(SWC) measures like terracing and / or trenches are recommended. Integrating
beekeeping as a group enterprise boosts the income component of this CSA
combination.
This manual repeatedly recommends combinations of climate-smart agriculture
measures which demonstrate triple-win potential. A degree of flexibility in
combinations is necessary, meanwhile, not only to suit local contexts but also to

58
ensure that adaptation, mitigation and livelihood benefits achieved by behavioural
changes in how things are done rather than trying to change what is being done.
Flexibility also allows for varied focus on the three pillars. Some years ago the focus
of CSA was very much on mitigation, but changes in the international carbon market
have shifted the focus much more toward adaptation.

CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016

CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016

Similar a CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016 (20)

CSA Manual GIZ SLMP Ethiopia 2016